Alexander Romanovsky after playing during the Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow. Photograph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

More drama from the Tchaikovsky Competition: first, the competition has had to distance itself from racist remarks made by conductor Mark Gorenstein during rehearsals with the Armenian cello finalist, Narek Hakhnazaryan. Second, there's a bit of a stooshie going on at the piano competition. Barry Douglas, the 1986 winner who's on the jury, tweeted a few days ago when the final five were announced, that "One audience member bounded over to me as I left the building saying 'shame on you' and 'do you think that [Alexander] Lubyantsev is not good pianist?'." There's more, too. On Monday, he said "Maestro Gergiev told me he has been contacted by many who are surprised at choice of finalists. The piano jury have been independent & fair". I spoke to Gergiev earlier that day for Radio 3's Music Matters (you can hear the whole programme on the Tchaikovsky, including interviews with Douglas, Peter Donohoe, Van Cliburn, Freddy Kempf, Anne Sophie-Mutter and Maxim Vengerov on Saturday) and he told me it's not just "contacting" that's been going on. There's a bit of pressure, too, from Russian friends of his who feel he should wade in, in his capacity as chairman of the organising committee, and try to change decisions.

He won't, and he's right not to, of course: the reputation of the Tchaikovsky Competition is at stake this year, and the judging process has to be perceived to be fair, whatever the outcome. And Barry is undoubtedly right that the jury has been independent in its decision-making. Have a look at the judging guidelines yourself, which are so mathematically and statistically scrupulous you need a PhD to understand them. But I think Gergiev has some sympathy with Lubyantsev and Eduard Kunz, one of the other high-profile Russian casualties. He reminded me that it's not just the winners who win, in terms of the career and reputation they go on to enjoy after the competition. And conversely, he told me that in 1966, only the last-minute intervention of the jury chairman that year, Emil Gilels, meant that Grigory Sokolov was that year's winner. If the audience had had their way, the American Misha Dichter would have won. History has proved Gilels right.

This year, Gergiev suggested to me that had there been more Russians on the jury, the outcome might have been different. He also commented "we cannot ignore the audience's reaction". Lubyantsev's departure caused the most controversy, as the audience's barracking of Barry shows. (Gergiev also said he would review everything from the composition of the juries to the voting system and the way the rounds work after the competition, and he didn't guarantee he would still be involved for the 2015 edition.) As I've said, based on the Mozart concerto I saw, I don't see how they could have put Lubyantsev through. However, the brilliant thing about this year's competition is the chance to watch all of the earlier rounds, and make your own minds up.

There are still two nights left of the finals in all of the instrumental and vocal disciplines. However objective Gergiev and general manager Richard Rodzinski have tried to be, you ain't never going to avoid annoying people in how the competition pans out, and you can't, and shouldn't, try to control the juries you convene. Whatever happens, there will be winners and losers later this week. The big questions are whether the individual prize-winners are worthy victors and go on to stellar careers like some of their predecessors, and whether this year's competition has done enough to save the tarnished reputation of what should be the world's most prestigious classical music competition. We'll know more by Thursday, when the results are announced – keep watching the finals in the meantime!